Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the problem is that the economy is growing at a mere 1.9%. at the same time during reagan presidency, the economy was growing at closer to 6% gdp. so tell me again how well the private sector is doing?
Yes, but that's because Reagan was spending us out of the recession, loading us up with debt, a strategy Republican's today won't allow Obama to do. It was fine for them back then, but not now.
... Both Reagan and Obama have witnessed a rebound in the job market, but Reagan's numbers are three times that of Obama's...
Yes, and go check the amount of stimulus Reagan applied to get his results compared to what Obama was allowed to get where we are now ....
Right, Reagan's stimulus was off the charts by comparison ...
Do it again now and watch what happens.
How many of those jobs would be among the newly defined "green jobs" from the definitions of the Labor Department? They have defined many jobs that have always been there as "green" and I bet they include all those "new" jobs in the count.
Oh my gosh had some friends over, and the responses we heard, we were cracking up, this is a green job, that is a green job, oh yes that is too, this one too.
Some of the jobs reported as green jobs, were like what! that is a green job.
All the responses, were yes to this is a green job!
Janitor in schools, are green jobs too. Woud say something, but i will refrain myself.
That is not a mystery response, did you not hear their stupid answers. Everything was a green job to them, whether it isn't a green job, to them all of a sudden, yes it is.
Every job in creation, is a green job, Come on now!
I've been saying it for the past few years: I don't buy this whole thing. Yes, some people lost their jobs. That i don't disagree with. Some lost their houses, because of it. I don't disagree with that either. However, how many people just walked away from their houses, because it was "cost effective" anymore? How many could have continued to pay, but just decided to live in their house for 12-18 months, rent/mortgage free, and live the life riley during that time period?
Where I live, the whole "down turn" thing was supposed to be bad. Same with the rest of the country. So, how is it, Apple is making record profits? iPad and iPhone sales have gone through the roof. What? Only the 1% are buying those things? When I've brought this up before, its: "But, people NEED cellphones to get a job." Ok, "maybe." But NOT a $300 dollar iPhone and its $100 a month service fee.
Ford and other car sale have also gone through the roof. Record profits in their businesses. What? Again, only the 1% can afford a new car? Oh, but Phil, just because times are bad, people still need to drive to get to work. Sure they do. However, a brand spanking new car? Or even a used one? Their 1995 Honda still has a few good years left in it, why get a new one if you have no money?
You can't go to ANY decent restaurant in the area where I live, on a Friday/Saturday night, and not wait 2+ hours for a table. But Phil, people are starving out there. They have no money to buy food. Really? I thought we are in an obesity epidemic?
Oh but, that is just where you live. You haven't gotten out much. Again, really? I've been all over the country and still don't see it. Last year, spent 2 months in Europe. Flying over from SFO? The plane was 100% full. Lots of American's all over Europe. Couldn't go anywhere without running into American's. Those are just the 1% too, because when you read the newspapers, NO ONE has money to eat, pay the rent, or travel anywhere.
Flew to China a month ago. Again, the plane was 100% full coming and going. Sure, some people on the plane were Chinese. However, many were American's going on vacation, just like me.
Just got back from Best Buy in Dublin. Saw at least 10 different people buying 42" plus flat screen TV's. I'm sure that is the 1% too.
Sorry people, just based upon my own eyes, I'm not buying this whole thing. People are taking a small thing and making it much bigger then it really is.
Yes, but that's because Reagan was spending us out of the recession, loading us up with debt, a strategy Republican's today won't allow Obama to do. It was fine for them back then, but not now.
Yes, but that's because Reagan was spending us out of the recession, loading us up with debt, a strategy Republican's today won't allow Obama to do. It was fine for them back then, but not now.
Yes, they are also not allowing us to cut corporate taxes while removing loop holes. Reagan did that, and they supported it, but now they oppose the same measures just for the sake of opposing.
Obama has increased the national debt more than all previous Presidents combined. That's a fact!
If that was true, the national debt would be at 22 trillion, but it is not. Bush did increase it more than all other before him combined. Reagan increased it three times as much as everyone before hims combined.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
